NY Times says one Mich St. player being paid $750,000 a year by boosters

[Great Plains Gopher]

In a full page Sunday Oct. 22 article, the New York Times, in a huge story, investigated the new charity-connected "collectives," that enroll players in phony charitable activity (such as posting one Tweet or other social notice a month), in a play-for-pay scheme disguised as NIL. Combined with the foolish transfer-anytime rule, the stage is set for paying $100 million to players in one year, 80% of it from these collectives. The NCAA can't stop this because of the dubious Supreme Court decision of a few years ago, which didn't anticipate the practical impact in the real world of its decision. It is totally unfair to less wealthy schools and totally unfair under Title IX to female athletes, who are being paid much less in basketball, for instance. Ryan Day is quoted as saying Ohio St. needs an additional $13 million a year in this fashion "to compete."

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

$13 million a year sounds a bit exaggerated!

 

[Word]

$13 million a year sounds a bit exaggerated!

Depends what kinds of players you're trying to buy. Caleb Williams reportedly is getting around $3 million. Ohio State wants those types of players.

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

Depends what kinds of players you're trying to buy. Caleb Williams reportedly is getting around $3 million. Ohio State wants those types of players.

But isn't he getting that from national endorsements? I assume Day is referring to some type of booster activity at OSU!

 

[GopherTheJugular]

The NCAA can't stop this because of the dubious Supreme Court decision of a few years ago, which didn't anticipate the practical impact in the real world of its decision.

Nor should it have. Do you really want the Supreme Court to rule along the lines of, "well, we'd like you to have these rights, but since some people might abuse the situation, we won't give them to you"?

Really? You'd be ok with that?

and totally unfair under Title IX to female athletes, who are being paid much less in basketball, for instance.

First off, title 9 has nothing to do with this. title 9 is for universities, not individual people who are not employed by universities. Secondly, title 9 is about equal opportunity, not equal results. Women have the same opportunity as men. So it is completely fair.

But, since you brought it up, doesn't Paige Bueckers make more than our entire football team? Is that a title 9 violation, or are title 9 violations just a one-way street in your world?

Ryan Day is quoted as saying Ohio St. needs an additional $13 million a year in this fashion "to compete."

What's your point??? You create a thread about an MSU player and then you begin to ramble on about title 9 and Ohio State.... Why not change the thread title to "I don't like collectives and I want to rant about it, please read." That would be far more appropriate.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

In addition, no where in your post do you actually talk about, or even mention, the MSU player!

 

[upnorthkid]

In addition, no where in your post do you actually talk about, or even mention, the MSU player!

He didn’t write this dude. It’s in the article. Direct quote

But the wealth has not been spread equally.

Because they are not operated by the schools, collectives ignore Title IX, a federal law that requires colleges to provide equal treatment to male and female athletes. At top schools, the average men’s basketball player with a collective contract is paid $37,000, and the average women’s player $9,000, according to Opendorse.

“You’ve got these collectives that are sitting just outside the door of the athletic department, distributing lots of money,” said Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois professor who has studied collectives and found that one school paid 89 percent of its money to football and men’s basketball players. “Just inside the door, Title IX applies. But outside the door, it doesn’t apply. It’s a sham.”

 

[upnorthkid]

In a full page Sunday Oct. 22 article, the New York Times, in a huge story, investigated the new charity-connected "collectives," that enroll players in phony charitable activity (such as posting one Tweet or other social notice a month), in a play-for-pay scheme disguised as NIL. Combined with the foolish transfer-anytime rule, the stage is set for paying $100 million to players in one year, 80% of it from these collectives. The NCAA can't stop this because of the dubious Supreme Court decision of a few years ago, which didn't anticipate the practical impact in the real world of its decision. It is totally unfair to less wealthy schools and totally unfair under Title IX to female athletes, who are being paid much less in basketball, for instance. Ryan Day is quoted as saying Ohio St. needs an additional $13 million a year in this fashion "to compete."

It’s an interesting read. That this is all being written off as tax deductions makes it a little easier to understand from these big donors if they’re just using it to balance their profits and reduce their tax hit

 

[GopherTheJugular]

He didn’t write this dude. It’s in the article. Direct quote

Oh. Ok. But typically, when quoting someone else, you use quotation marks, and generally you put the quoted stuff in italics so people can tell the difference. My mistake on that part.

But the wealth has not been spread equally.

Nothing illegal about that. Granted, it's starting to ruin college football, but it's still legal.

Because they are not operated by the schools, collectives ignore Title IX, a federal law that requires colleges to provide equal treatment to male and female athletes. At top schools, the average men’s basketball player with a collective contract is paid $37,000, and the average women’s player $9,000, according to Opendorse.

Glad they both get the opportunity to earn. Fairness. Does Opendorse mention all the money that female gymnast for LSU made? How many men earned that amount?

“You’ve got these collectives that are sitting just outside the door of the athletic department, distributing lots of money,” said Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois professor who has studied collectives and found that one school paid 89 percent of its money to football and men’s basketball players. “Just inside the door, Title IX applies. But outside the door, it doesn’t apply. It’s a sham.”

It's not a sham.

 

[Stuff]

That's a horrible ROI.

 

[NotAFanOfBecky]

They need to do something to balance this, or college football will be ruined. Hopefully that is being discussed by the NCAA as well as ADs and coaches, particularly those that are in the have not category. I have heard many coaches publicly complain so there are some legs to it. Now, can they get past that pesky Supreme Court ruling. Hmmm…

 

[swede2]

It’s an interesting read. That this is all being written off as tax deductions makes it a little easier to understand from these big donors if they’re just using it to balance their profits and reduce their tax hit

The IRS has already ruled that contributions to NIL collectives are not tax deductible. And even if they were, nobody is using it to "balance their profits and reduce their tax hit." If I want to reduce my taxable income by $10,000 or whatever the number is, there are a lot better ways to do so than giving it away to a college athlete. If I give $10,000 to a NIL Collective, even if tax deductible, I'm out $10,000. If I keep it for myself, I pay $3500 in tax and still have $6500 in my pocket. If I really wanted to "balance my profit and reduce my tax hit" I'd invest that amount into my business where I get a tax benefit and the actual use of my money. But that's all moot since it is not deductible. People contributing to NIL Collectives are simply doing it because they are a sycophant for their favorite college team.

 

[I'm A Maroon 2!]

They need to do something to balance this, or college football will be ruined.

Too late

 

[btowngopher]

That's a horrible ROI.

Right, I can’t even name a MSU player outside of Noah Kim.

 

[upnorthkid]

The IRS has already ruled that contributions to NIL collectives are not tax deductible. And even if they were, nobody is using it to "balance their profits and reduce their tax hit." If I want to reduce my taxable income by $10,000 or whatever the number is, there are a lot better ways to do so than giving it away to a college athlete. If I give $10,000 to a NIL Collective, even if tax deductible, I'm out $10,000. If I keep it for myself, I pay $3500 in tax and still have $6500 in my pocket. If I really wanted to "balance my profit and reduce my tax hit" I'd invest that amount into my business where I get a tax benefit and the actual use of my money. But that's all moot since it is not deductible. People contributing to NIL Collectives are simply doing it because they are a sycophant for their favorite college team.

That’s not the implication of the article in how the tax reduction is working. I’m not a big money donor nor own my own business, but the article is making it sound like some of these collectives are finding work arounds to make it tax deductible for big money donors (read the section on the PSU yacht club party)

 

[Sparlimb]

First off, title 9 has nothing to do with this. title 9 is for universities, not individual people who are not employed by universities. Secondly, title 9 is about equal opportunity, not equal results. Women have the same opportunity as men. So it is completely fair.

You are completely correct. Athletes are now allowed to earn money based on someone's perceived value of them. It was never meant to be fair nor can it. Just like all the b*tching this year about how the really hot girls in gymnastics are earning a million dollars NIL and the rest are not. This is what they passed and this is what we get. At some point, it will slow down as boosters will get tired of giving big pay days and not getting the results they want. But we're still in the beginnings where everyone thinks they can buy a title.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

They need to do something to balance this, or college football will be ruined. Hopefully that is being discussed by the NCAA as well as ADs and coaches, particularly those that are in the have not category. I have heard many coaches publicly complain so there are some legs to it. Now, can they get past that pesky Supreme Court ruling. Hmmm…

There is no Supreme court ruling regarding NIL. They have only ruled on education-related costs.

The NCAA punted on fighting state legislatures which may or may not have gone all the way up the chain. The NCAA may have seen which way the tide is moving and sees future of PFP, mass realignment.

For now we have a mess. One way to calm the water would be reinstating transfer rules.

 

[Ope3]

There is no Supreme court ruling regarding NIL. They have only ruled on education-related costs.

The NCAA punted on fighting state legislatures which may or may not have gone all the way up the chain. The NCAA may have seen which way the tide is moving and sees future of PFP, mass realignment.

For now we have a mess. One way to calm the water would be reinstating transfer rules.

O'Bannon v. NCAA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal. The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.

 

[MplsGopher]

I was gonna say, pretty sure O’Bannon is the entire reason.

And for what was actually argued in that case , it made perfect sense. Actual, reasonable, bona fide NIL deals directly between a player and a real, tangible business looking to do advertising/endorsement should be allowed!


And then people immediately perverted it. Because, duh.


Maybe what pompous meant is that the SC has never heard arguments about the legality of collectives.

I think the idea that these are tax-exempt charities is a laughingstock and borderline fraud.

 

[MNVCGUY]

There is no Title IX angle to this pay for play landscape. All college athletes can earn NIL money and some are going to have access to more than others based on their status.

As for the pay for play money....that is really only going to be there for college football and men's basketball for the most part because that is where most of the money is at in college athletics.

 

[swingman]

https://x.com/DavidHarns/status/1716873797419335718?s=20

 

[MplsGopher]

Uh huh. Damage control in East Lansing.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

O'Bannon v. NCAA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal. The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.

After all the machinations in the end it only applied to education-related costs.




who ruled against the NCAA in March 2019 and required the NCAA to allow students to obtain other non-cash scholarships, internships and other support beyond the full cost-of-attendeance for academic purposes.[24] Some of these benefits include private tutoring, advanced class selection and access to exclusive college benefits. The court worried that allowing college athletes to profit off their name and likeness would allow large schools with large fanbases to offer more money to players. These non-cash benefits are services all colleges can provide which makes the competitive landscape to recruit talent fair for all colleges.[6]

The Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling on appeal, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision in June 2021 in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston.[25][26]

 

[MplsGopher]

@Pompous Elitist are you being purposefully obtuse?

Before O’Bannon, no college athlete ever got paid for NIL.

After O’Bannon, lots of them do.


No? Nothing?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I was gonna say, pretty sure O’Bannon is the entire reason.

And for what was actually argued in that case , it made perfect sense. Actual, reasonable, bona fide NIL deals directly between a player and a real, tangible business looking to do advertising/endorsement should be allowed!


And then people immediately perverted it. Because, duh.


Maybe what pompous meant is that the SC has never heard arguments about the legality of collectives.

I think the idea that these are tax-exempt charities is a laughingstock and borderline fraud.

Again, they specifically only ruled on education costs. Wilken even agreed NIL was not acceptable….

NCAA punted.

 

[MplsGopher]

Again, I think you’re being excessively hyper-technical borderline obtuse, without a valid justification for doing so.

Go ahead and give it, then.

 

[fmlizard]

A Michigan State football player is being paid this?

Kenneth Walker III doesn't get paid a whole lot more than this and he's a top 10 NFL RB right now.

Sounds like it came from the financial geniuses who gave Mel Tucker almost $10M a year for a partial year run of close wins against bad teams.

NIL and Collectives are so full of obvious loopholes and exploits an 8 year old could figure out how to funnel unlimited money to players and not go to prison. I'm not even sure it's fair to call them loopholes since the rules are so ill-defined and fragmented.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

The IRS has already ruled that contributions to NIL collectives are not tax deductible. And even if they were, nobody is using it to "balance their profits and reduce their tax hit." If I want to reduce my taxable income by $10,000 or whatever the number is, there are a lot better ways to do so than giving it away to a college athlete. If I give $10,000 to a NIL Collective, even if tax deductible, I'm out $10,000. If I keep it for myself, I pay $3500 in tax and still have $6500 in my pocket. If I really wanted to "balance my profit and reduce my tax hit" I'd invest that amount into my business where I get a tax benefit and the actual use of my money. But that's all moot since it is not deductible. People contributing to NIL Collectives are simply doing it because they are a sycophant for their favorite college team.

But if I'm Wendy's, and bring in Caleb Williams to do a commercial, it is tax deductible.

If I'm a business, instead of giving to the NIL collective, I bring in a couple of players to do a personal appearance. Those payments are deductible as marketing/advertising expense.

But remember to give those players the proper IRS paperwork (1099-NEC).

 

[PMWinSTP]

O'Bannon v. NCAA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal. The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.

I don't think this is the same based on the circumstances of the siut.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Nor should it have. Do you really want the Supreme Court to rule along the lines of, "well, we'd like you to have these rights, but since some people might abuse the situation, we won't give them to you"?

Really? You'd be ok with that?



First off, title 9 has nothing to do with this. title 9 is for universities, not individual people who are not employed by universities. Secondly, title 9 is about equal opportunity, not equal results. Women have the same opportunity as men. So it is completely fair.

But, since you brought it up, doesn't Paige Bueckers make more than our entire football team? Is that a title 9 violation, or are title 9 violations just a one-way street in your world?


What's your point??? You create a thread about an MSU player and then you begin to ramble on about title 9 and Ohio State.... Why not change the thread title to "I don't like collectives and I want to rant about it, please read." That would be far more appropriate.

Bueckers money comes from monetizing her Instagram & X. I think she has a TikTik and You Tube channel, too.